Up next
Author

There was something of a surreal quality to the White House press briefing yesterday. The briefing led off with a question to Press Secretary and endearing muppet Jen Psaki about her tweet alleging that Russia may be planning to use chemical weapons in Ukraine.

Personally, I don’t believe our intelligence services are bright or competent enough to predict an imminent chemical attack. I think the non-stop string of warnings that Russia was about to invade Ukraine was a public relations strategy. If Russia did eventually invade, then they could say, “look, we told you it was about to happen,” and if no invasion took place, they could say, “we stopped Putin from invading by releasing his top-secret plans.” Still, it is a considerable leap from bogus predictions of an invasion to accusing a country with pretensions to civilization of planning to use a chemical weapon.

The video below is queued to the question.

[embedded content]

Q    Yes, ma’am.  Thank you.  I wanted to follow up on your tweet yesterday about being on the lookout for Russia to use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine and possibly creating false-flag operations to use them.

What is the evidence to back that up beyond what you said in the tweet that it’s a “pattern” from Russia?  Is there more to this than it just being a pattern with them?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, they have a large biological and chemical weapons program, so it’s a pattern.  But they also have the capacity.

While I’m not going to get into specific intelligence, we look at all of those factors.  And we also know, and one of the reasons — one of the — the main issue that prompted my Twitter thread yesterday was that Russia has a history also of inventing outright lies like this, which is the suggestion that the United States has a chemical and biological weapons program, or Ukraine does, that they’re operating.  Russia is the one — is the country that has a chemical and biological weapons program.

So the objective was to make clear the inaccuracy of the information, the misinformation they’re trying to put out, and make clear to the world that they not only have the capacity, they have a history of using chemical and biological weapons, and that, in this moment, we should have our eyes open for that possibility.

Q    Would use of chemical or biological weapons be a red line for the President in terms of direct U.S. involvement in the war over there?

MS. PSAKI:  We are directly involved.  We are providing a billion dollars in security assistance.  We are the largest provider of that.  We are providing humanita- —

Q    With the military troops.

READ RELATED: How The Thames Torso Murders Differ From The Jack The Ripper Murders

MS. PSAKI:  With the U.S. military going and engaging in Ukraine and fighting a war against Russia?  We don’t have any intention to do that.

Later in the briefing, another reporter “circled back,” or we could say Psircled back, to the chemical attack question. Again, the video is queued to the question.

[embedded content]

Q    Jen, you said earlier to one of my colleagues that nothing that Russia has done so far in terms of this invasion has gone unanswered, when you were being asked about bio and chemical weapons.  Obviously, none of what we have done to answer Russia has steered them from continuing this invasion.  So why not consider some alternate strategy to communicate to Russia the consequence if they are to do a bio or chemical weapons strike inside Ukraine?

MS. PSAKI:  Like what?

Q    I’m asking you.  In other words, why not communicate — you won’t say if it’s a “red line,” right?  Because you won’t say it’s not our intention right now.  So let me start there.  Is there any red line for Russia that the U.S. would have some involvement where the military entered into Ukraine?

MS. PSAKI:  I’m not going to get into red lines from here, Peter.  What I would tell you is that when I said we have not let anything go unanswered, what I mean is that we have amped up a range of military and security assistance, a historic amount to Ukraine, including a range of defensive weapons, which we’ve expedited the delivery.  Even in the last 10 days, we’ve delivered about $240 million of that.

And also, we’ve provided a range of humanitarian assistance.  And we have basically crushed the Russian economy, which — where the — where the stock market is not even open.  So it’s inaccurate to suggest it’s gone unanswered.  We have taken all those steps and rallied the world.

Q    And I’m not saying that’s gone unanswered.  You say it’s gone answered; we’ve witnessed the answer in the form of sanctions.  I’m saying, given the potential that you’ve indicated that Russia could use a bio or chemical weapons strike there, why wouldn’t the U.S. communicate to them something that is not an answer, but instead preemptive, to communicate the consequence if they are to take what would be a horrific — this war to a horrific new level?

MS. PSAKI:  The President’s first and most important objective is the national security and interest of the United States and being clear and direct with the American people.  He has been clear and direct with the American people.  He is not intending to send U.S. troops to fight in Ukraine against Russia to start another war.  That that would be an escalatory step; that would not be in our national security interests and not in the interests of NATO.

What we have conveyed is Russia’s capabilities, their capacities, and their pattern of using chemical and biological weapons.

Q    And so, what does he say then — that’s the message to the American people: his responsibility to them, of course, is before any other.  What does he say to Vladimir Putin?  If those at the head of the Russian government are considering that, what do you say to them watching right now?

MS. PSAKI:  We have been very clear, and our actions have been the evidence of this, that there will be significant consequences for every escalatory step that is taken by President Putin and the Russian government.

This is, in my view, a fairly bizarre series of events. A White House press secretary should not accuse any nation of planning a chemical attack without substantive evidence to back up the claim. The limits become even more important when the country accused is in the middle of an unprovoked invasion where the United States is providing arms to one of the belligerents and where we have partners in a mutual defense treaty that share borders with the nations in conflict. If an attack is so imminent that the White House has decided to go public with the information, that implies the White House has already conveyed appropriate warnings by diplomatic channels. The purpose of the press secretary’s statement should be to prepare Americans for what comes next.

Psaki’s refusal to firmly state that any consequences would be forthcoming should Russia use chemical weapons in Ukraine leads to one of two conclusions.

First, and most likely, is that Psaki was engaged in Twitter-trolling when she made the allegation to attempt to divert attention from Russia’s claims about biological warfare labs in Ukraine funded by the United States. Second, the Biden White House continues to sh** itself at the thought of offending Putin because the White House relied upon Putin to mediate our discussions with Iran. It knows a chemical attack is possible and hopes the issue goes away. Psaki’s tweet, in this theory, was an attempt to warn off Russia. What we have witnessed is either the most irresponsible Twitter trolling in history, or Russia has just received what could be construed as a green light to use chemical weapons.

This is scary because there is no reason to assume that Russia will not use chemical weapons in Ukraine if the war continues to drag on. Putin has drawn his own line in the sand. As of last weekend, he demanded that the Ukrainian army demobilize, the Zelensky government be removed, the official recognition of the Russian theft of Crimea by Ukraine, and recognition of the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk by the new Ukrainian government.

Anything less than this becomes a political win for Zelensky and a loss for Putin. If his military operation continues to stall, Putin will have to use whatever means he has at his disposal to achieve a victory. If that entails using chemical or tactical nuclear weapons, I don’t see any reason to assume he won’t use them.

Source: